I don't see this as that surprising or a big deal, really. If you do some basic research you'll find that every modern country already has legislation that obliges internet service providers to cooperate with intercepting communications. As more services like Gmail switch to SSL by default, it's natural that the law enforcement agencies will switch their attention to the online service providers instead, and in many cases they're obliged to assist as well. Check out Google's transparency report for example. It sounds like the FBI probably just want to streamline the process through which they do this.

I try to take a balanced view of this kind of activity because I do think that there are very legitimate uses of this kind of ability. Remember these guys? They obviously got caught because the various law enforcement agencies were able to use surveillance like this to do their jobs (you can read the portions from their emails that were read in court).

What I will say is that I think this ability ought to be very carefully regulated and only used sparingly and when absolutely necessary. A couple of years ago, for example, there was controversy in the UK over local councils using these kind of powers for frivolous reasons. Abilities like this ought to be limited to particular agencies that really need them - intelligence agencies and specific branches of the police.

I'd rather we ignored the terrorists and imprisoned anyone implementing back doors. It's not possible to regulate security agencies tightly enough; therefore, it's not worth going to such lengths to prevent the kinds of crimes they prevent.

Aliotroph? said:
I'd rather we ignored the terrorists and imprisoned anyone implementing back doors. It's not possible to regulate security agencies tightly enough, therefore it's not worth going to such lengths to prevent the kinds of crimes they prevent.

They are only asking the companies providing telephony via internet to do the same as all landline/mobile providers already do - and have been doing for many, many years.

I won't comment on the 'FBI is evil' stuff - but the fact remains that law enforcement needs a way to do their job, and they can't do their job if the criminals can use technology that law enforcement can't access.

When it comes between choosing between the FBI and the Mafia I'd still choose the FBI.

Wanna join the FBI? Conduct a mini false flag and director Mueller will see to it that you receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom very quickly.

Damn it.

The FBI has always broken the law and violated the constitution, since the beginning. The difference here is they now have the power to monitor everyone without suspicion and bust people who haven't even made themselves a public nuisance.

Mark my words, people are going to get busted and pay dearly for simple copyright violations and saying something stupid on their blogs. What's sad is the person who has been imprisoned for speaking his mind is no longer entitled to a trial as long as they find him threatening.

God it's not even funny how much this is sounding like an Orwellian police state.

Graf Zahl said:
I won't comment on the 'FBI is evil' stuff - but the fact remains that law enforcement needs a way to do their job, and they can't do their job if the criminals can use technology that law enforcement can't access.

Please, open your windows, they're just looking for the commie-terrorist-pedophiles; you have nothing to worry about, sir. It's not like the feds won't bust you on something they weren't necessarily looking for.

I'm beginning to think that the Mafia and the FBI are one massive entity, not separate groups / organizations / agencies or whatever.

The Mafia's intentions in Sicily was something that could be respected but like the ones before them, they deteriorate and it evolves into a germ that spreads like a virus. It's sad but I don't think the Mafia can return to the beginnings because the corruption and peoples personal greed and agendas stop that particular progress.

Technician said:
Please, open your windows, they're just looking for the commie-terrorist-pedophiles; you have nothing to worry about, sir. It's not like the feds won't bust you on something they weren't necessarily looking for.

The question is not whether you are paranoid - the question is whether you are paranoid enough.

They still need to follow certain rules to do surveillance - and those haven't changed just for different media. It they couldn't tap your phone before they won't be able to tap your Skype. And if they'd be allowed to tap your Skype they would have tapped your phone as well. But why do you fear they'd tap you in the first place? I still believe they got bigger fish to fry.

I think the reaction here tells more about the overall state of trust in one's country's institutions. It seems to be perfectly nil for a certain part of the American public.

MRB_Doom said:
I'm beginning to think that the Mafia and the FBI are one massive entity, not separate groups / organizations / agencies or whatever.

More paranoid bullshit. (and read my last statement above.

There's no denying that there's a lot wrong with how the USA work but the attitude that comes through here is just ridiculous.

The FBI has already proven itself plenty unworthy of trust with such abusable rules since they started abusing various parts of the PATRIOT Act to spy on and press charges against US citizens. This request coming at the same time as Congress tries to pass CISPA, a bill that enables free information sharing without warrants, is doubtful a coincidence.

The US establishment is railing constantly against the Internet in attempts to establish an all-seeing surveillance culture and gain access to everyone's personal information to a degree without precedent in human history. This at the same time that corporations are trying to destroy freedoms wherever they come into contact with their profit lines or public images, and have complete control of the government through lobbying and campaign funding.

Go ask RIAA or MPAA what they think about the FBI having backdoor access to everyone's systems. They'll tell you they love it and will be using it soon to spy on and find everyone who has any "content" for which a demonstratable license doesn't exist.

Actually, they don't, and this is where you are rudely ignorant to how the US government works. Since 911 and the birth of Homeland Security, the feds have been picking on vocal citizens adamantly, and just this year they passed the NDAA that can imprison you just for saying the wrong words. The FBI has done thing in the past sixty years to warrant any kind of trust. From assassinations to imprisonment without charge, they've done it all. Like Aliotroph? said: "Giving any large organization that kind of power is stupid and irresponsible."

Graf Zahl said:
I think the reaction here tells more about the overall state of trust in one's country's institutions. It seems to be perfectly nil for a certain part of the American public.

And with good reason. This past decade has been nothing but a continual erosion of rights and freedoms.

printz said:
Does this risk extend outside America?

I'm confident if America picks up on a person they'd consider threatening to their well being on the net, they'll try and extradite him/her. Fuck, they extradited that Brit for simply linking to copyrighted material on his blog a few month back.

There's no denying that there's a lot wrong with how the USA work but the attitude that comes through here is just ridiculous.

While it undoubtedly helps, you don't have to be paranoid to draw parallels between the current trend towards treating the proletariat as potential enemies of the state and the rise of Hitler's Third Reich. What concerns me most is how widespread this slide towards police state totalitarianism has been since 9/11.

printz said:
I'd like to see some proof (about "dissidents" being rampantly arrested)... Even online newspapers would count.